February 16, 2011
By Staff Reporter
By Ray O’Hanlon
In the waning months of last year, as George W. Bush began taking on the appearance of Republican front-runner for the 2000 presidential election, Irish Americans connected to both the GOP and the Democratic Party in New York initiated a joint behind-the-scenes effort to stir the debating pot on Ireland.
The view was that while President Clinton’s effort for peace was deserving of the highest praise, the position of his possible successor would also be of crucial importance for a peace process that was showing every sign of passing into the new century. That next president might be Al Gore. Then again, it might be George W. Bush.
With New York Gov. George Pataki, a Bush supporter, as point man, a signal was sent to Bush headquarters in Austin, Texas, that a statement on Ireland would be most welcome, not to mention of considerable use to an emerging campaign that would need Irish-American votes in some number if a second Bush was to walk into the White House.
From an Irish-American GOP point of view in far away New York, all this made perfect sense. From a Democratic point of view it was a slightly risky proposition. But bipartisanship on Ireland had been a growing trend, at least in Congress. And besides, a Bush statement on Ireland would spur Democratic presidential hopefuls, not least Gore, to match if not surpass Bill Clinton’s 1992 pledges to Irish Americans — promises that had eventually transformed into a series of fully fledged foreign policy initiatives on Ireland.
Pataki’s contact with Bush produced a brief statement, issued by the Bush campaign on Oct. 28: "I hope that Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland find a way to overcome the remaining obstacles and finally achieve a lasting peace. The United States should do everything it can to help make this happen." It wasn’t exactly a heartstopper. But it was a start.
Sign up to The Irish Echo Newsletter
In the following weeks, as Bush began to emerge from his day job as governor of Texas into Bush the presidential candidate, there was scant sign that the Oct. 28 statement would be followed up by a broader commitment. And in the GOP’s higher intellectual levels, where foreign policy is always to the fore, there was virtually no acknowledgment that Bush, by virtue of his few words, had actually stepped where no GOP presidential favorite had stepped before.
Foreign Affairs is an influential publication that comes out every two months. The January/February 2000 issue contained two articles by leading Republican Party foreign policy analysts. Condoleeza Rice, one of Bush’s closest foreign policy advisers, penned a lengthy piece in which Northern Ireland was not mentioned at all.
Rice wrote that American foreign policy in a Republican administration should "refocus the United States on the national interest and the pursuit of key priorities." The implication of what did not follow in an Irish context was that U.S. involvement in the search for a settlement in Ireland was neither a priority nor a matter vital to U.S. national interest.
The second Foreign Affairs article, "A Republican Foreign Policy," by Robert Zoellick, a senior official in both the Reagan and Bush administrations, mentioned Northern Ireland in passing and only in the context of criticizing President Clinton for making mistakes that had made it harder for him to accomplish his goals "in areas — such as the Middle East and Northern Ireland — where he has invested considerable effort in bringing parties together for peace processes."
Given such limited attention at top advisor level, the Bush statement of last week — contained in an ad published in this paper, was a significant advance.
Said Bush: "The people of Northern Ireland have an opportunity for an historic reconciliation bringing peace and a local representative assembly to a land that has seen so much pain and bloodshed. I know this isn’t easy. But the spirit and letter of the Good Friday agreement should be restored. And I hope the parties can work back to the reinstatement of the Northern Ireland Assembly, because the Assembly represents the best hope for peace in Northern Ireland.
"If elected President of the United States, I would use the prestige of the Presidency to promote peace in Northern Ireland. If necessary I will name a Special Peace Envoy to continue the good work of former Senator George Mitchell, and move the Irish peace process forward."
Some of the ground made up by Bush as a result of this statement was almost immediately lost by Bush’s failure to show at the Irish American Presidential Forum in Manhattan last weekend. The damage would have been greater only that his main rival for the GOP nomination, Sen. John McCain, also stayed away from the event at John Jay College.
In the light of the Bush statement, it was surprising that McCain didn’t take a few minutes out of his campaign schedule to address the forum. Not so much because Al Gore was going to show — and did — but because it was a fair guess that the Bush people might take the view that their man’s statement on Ireland was enough to see him through Super Tuesday with Irish Americans.
Irish American Republicans who include Northern Ireland in their voting calculations have been watching McCain with increasing fascination in recent weeks. From strident criticism of President Clinton’s Irish policy in 1996, McCain has turned several corners on the issue to the point where he recently appeared ready for a culminating Road to Damascus moment. That moment might have been at the forum. But it didn’t happen, this despite the fact that McCain has been increasingly linked recently with Rep. Peter King, the GOP’s veteran voice on Northern Ireland.
The greening of George Bush and John McCain has been a slow process. And just how green they really can become is still open to question. Neither man seems as naturally open to Irish American concerns as Bill Clinton was in 1992. At the same time, both have moved away significantly from previous positions — standpoints which not only gave Irish America the cold shoulder, but, in the case of the 1996 version of John McCain, gave Bill Clinton a hot tongue lashing for even giving Northern Ireland the time of day.
McCain sees things rather differently in 2000. Even as Bush advanced his position on paper last week, McCain’s campaign came out with a statement critical of Bush while promising that a McCain White House would stay the course on Ireland pioneered by the president who was once the object of McCain’s scorn.
Said McCain: "In South Carolina, my opponent, Gov. Bush, dismissed more than five years of effort, risk and sacrifice by bold and courageous men and women in Northern Ireland as ‘falling apart.’ All men and women be they Catholic, Protestant, Irish, American, or just people who believe in our nation’s efforts to support peace, democracy, and the resolution of ancient conflicts — know our support for the Irish people in Northern Ireland must continue unabated. As I made clear in South Carolina, this is consistent with our American ideals and values.
"I assure you that in my Administration, the parties in Northern Ireland who evidence good faith — Catholic and Protestant alike — will continue to be encouraged, not discouraged."
And there, as the saying goes, the hare sits.